Who is making all that money from the S&P 500?

I'll tell you. I am. And, 2007 is going to be my most profitable year ever. Can you say the same? Can you travel to Europe twice a year? Keep your kids in a private school? Own a summer home? I can. And, I want to thank everyone out there for giving it to me. Honestly, the tax breaks have also been amazing. It's getting harder and harder to hide your wealth these days. but, you know what I mean.

Thank God for this Administration. It's great to see all of us moving out of our tax bracket and up into a juicier climate! Now we just need to figure out how to not pay all these accountants so much money! Ha. I love what they do, but they cost a bundle.

It's good to know we're ALL enjoying the benefits of this Administration's economic policies!!!!

If only they could pass legislation to give them 4 more years!!!

What does the S&P have to do with the Middle Class. A middle class that has declared bankruptcy in increasing numbers each year Bush has been in office. 50% of those bankruptcies were due to medical bills because we don't have universal health coverage like every other Western nation.

We are losing our jobs to companies that prefer to offshore. Education is so expensive that many cannot afford college, so the best and brightest are now coming out of India and China where college is free.

S&P 500 means nothing to me.

If only they could pass legislation to give them 4 more years!!!

Posted by: walcrowe at May 31, 2007 03:03 AM

Ah, what the heck, walcrowe, why stop at 4 years, why not declare Bush 'leader for life' and get rid of all those pesky people who want to oppose this marvellous man of monetary magic. Remember, it's money, money, money that is the driving force of life; we need to forget all that other mushy stuff, it just doesn't cut it.

Sounding like a true fascist there walcrowe.

Yes, of course, we're all getting richer because the stock market is going up! Because we all know every person in the USA owns stock!

Tell me something, if we're getting richer, explain again the increasing interim between the rich and the poor? Explain how the rich(those who own stock) are getting richer, while the poor are becoming poorer.

Do you even understand how the stock market works?

Thankyou President Bush for saving our economy! Keeping the stock market high and unemployment low.

we're NOT "wealthy" (whatever that means).

we're a debtor nation.

it's even worse than the politicans describe due to the mixing of obligated funds (social sec, medicad, etc) w general revenue.

the chinese own TENS OF BILLIONS & BILLIONS of our Treasury notes.

both parties have colluded in what would be criminal financial "accounting" in the private sector.

we're selling-off our future to our enemies!

I have a little news here for you folks. Presidents have a very modest influence on the economy. They can establish policies that will either incentivize or disincentivize corporations willingness to re-invest in their business model. They can also take away or implement barriers to markets. Other than that, the health of the economy will, and always will, rely on the optimism of the overall corporate enviroment. That being said:

April 2007 Marks 44th Consecutive Month Of Job Growth

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

I would say the mood is rather bullish at the moment. Which does result in the following:

Real After-Tax Personal Income Increased At A Strong 4.5 Percent Annual Rate In The First Quarter. Per capita, real after-tax income has risen by 10.4 percent – more than $3,000 – since President Bush took office.

Real Wages Rose 1.3 Percent Over The 12 Months Ending In March. This is faster than the average rate of the late 1990s economy, and it means an extra $765 in the past year for the typical family with two wage earners.

The primary reason the US is the worlds economic leader is because of our capatilistic approach to markets. This has resulted in the US bringing to market every vital tool in todays global society: the telephone, the computer, the airplane, the automobile, electricity, etc.

Our capatilistic approach has its downsides, those who choose to not engage are typically the worse for ware, however those that choose to engage can be handsomely rewarded. Their are many safety nets even in our economic model: SS, Food Stamps, WIC, etc. But why anyone would want to re-define our economic model to accomodate the lowest common denominator of our society (Hillary) is actually punishing the overall global society for mostly personal gain and power.

How pathetic.

Good job Neocon on not addressing the fact that the margin between the rich and the poor are increasing more and more every year.

The poor get poorer, the rich get richer.

How does that equal economic flourish for the poor? They are included in the population of America, are they not?

Newsflash: Not everyone owns stock.

Our economic system is so powerful we have to borrow huge sums of money from a country with a "failed" economic system (Communism)China?

How does that equal economic flourish for the poor? They are included in the population of America, are they not? - colin

Colin, please read AGAIN:

Our capatilistic approach has its downsides, those who choose to not engage are typically the worse for ware, however those that choose to engage can be handsomely rewarded. Their are many safety nets even in our economic model: SS, Food Stamps, WIC, etc.

It is not the governments responsibility to make sure people get out of bed and go to work, or go to school, or try and improve themselves everyday, nor is it anyone elses responsibility. Theirs and theirs alone. If they choose to languish in mediocrity than that is the lifestyle they choose. There are the aforementioned programs to help the very needy and with the "faith based" charities (can I say that) and other charitable programs, those who choose not to engage can still survive.

Now nothing is stopping you from donating more of your income to the poor.

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor! Duh! Nothing to do with people being cut from their jobs to ship it overseas, nothing to do with the fact that less jobs are available then ever before. Obviously many poor people can take themselves out of that situation---but not all of them can. Not when your a mother with two newborn babies who lives alone and HAS to depend on welfare to survive.

The assertation of this post was that AMERICANS (not just rich Americans) are becoming more wealthy---this is NOT true. Middle class and lower class people are becoming less and less wealthy, while the only group of people with increased wealth is the rich. Those facts right there completely debunk the idea that "Americans are becoming more wealthy" because only a small group of Americans are. That's like saying penguins are becoming extinct because some are dying rapidly. It's ludicrous, as all of your statements are.

Address the POST here---he said Americans are wealthier. That isn't true. Pretty simple to understand, even for someone as brainwashed and neoconned as yourself.

so the best and brightest are now coming out of India and China where college is free.

CW, perhaps I'm just dense, but I wonder if you could explain exactly how the "free college thing" works. Obviously India and China have figured it out. How would we go about implementing "free college" in this country? Hopefully we can do it in the next 5 years, so that when my granddaughter goes to college my wife and I can take the money we've set aside for her and use it to take a cruise instead.

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor!

Not always, Colin; just as Ted Kennedy is an example of someone who's wealthy through no effort of his own. But as a general rule, the poor are poor and the rich are rich because of choices they've made. Would you rather live in a society that guarantees that you will achieve a certain outcome in life and no more, or would you rather live in a society that provides you the opportunity to be the best (or worst) that you can be?

The assertation of this post was that AMERICANS (not just rich Americans) are becoming more wealthy---this is NOT true. - colin

Wrong. Marks "assertion" was that Americas economy, as a whole, is very financially healthy. And he's right.

...the supply side economic of President Bush, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, has economically put the house completely back in order and made us wealthier than we've ever been.

The assertation of this post was that AMERICANS (not just rich Americans) are becoming more wealthy---this is NOT true. - colin

Wrong. Marks "assertion" was that Americas economy, as a whole, is very financially healthy. And he's right.

...the supply side economic of President Bush, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, has economically put the house completely back in order and made us wealthier than we've ever been.

“fact that less jobs are available then ever before” That is not a fact, go to www.bls.gov and do some research.

“ Middle class and lower class people (note: that's an hysterical characterization) are becoming less and less wealthy,” Less wealthy? WTF does that mean? Do you just make these things up and figure no one will check? Go to census.gov and research median income and inflation.

Most Americans own stocks through 401(k) and retirement investments. Most Corporations include stock holdings in their portfolios from a wide array of investments; this facilitates expansion and capital investment. Even if you don’t own stocks by yourself, the company you work for does, and that’s how they have the ability to expand business, hire more people and pay more taxes.

And, while we’re on the subject; maybe you can explain to me this simple question; if the gap between rich and poor is growing, why is this a bad thing? What circumstances happen to the detriment of either group? (Hint: the guru of disproportional wealth, Paul Krugman has also never answered this question. Gloom-and-doomers only insist it is a problem without ever explaining why.)

OhioOrrin,
you couldn’t be more wrong about the debt to China; as a “lender” they are invested in our success. But, even if your worse fears would come to fruition, China would be the biggest loser in a transaction that didn’t go according to the terms of the loan, not the US. Intergovernmental accounting isn’t comparable to “private sector” accounting.

Would you rather live in a society that guarantees that you will achieve a certain outcome in life and no more, or would you rather live in a society that provides you the opportunity to be the best (or worst) that you can be? - RS

Spook, do you actually have to ask that question?

Spook,
The largest influx into American collages and Universities are from the Asian countries where post-secondary education is “free.” The problem for these student immigrants is that the government decides to whom the education is given; many bright students come from families that are not well connected enough to secure a spot, and many are told they don’t qualify for reasons not given. Like Canada’s health-care delivery system; the recipient is not the one making the decision; the government or some bureaucrat decides who gets the new heart, and who works in the fields.

I see these people every single day. These folks are the "best and the brightest" because their families and cultures put a high premium on education. Failure in school is not an option.

Colin,

Have you ever wondered if the same people or families remain in poverty constantly? The answer is very few, most people who are willing to work will work their way out of poverty. The only time you will see generations growing up in the same impoverished conditions are when you see either government incentives to not change (welfare) or government disincentives to change (such as taxes that penalize those who create the jobs). Guess what, even when one or both of those items happen, there are still people who don't want to be on welfare like their parent(s), or who are willing to invest in new jobs even if they get taxed for it. Go figure.

Now, go to work, work hard, and you too could move up in the world.

I should also mention that a large population of Asian students is sent here by their governments, to receive the quality education not available in their home countries, at least not available in the numbers required to educate their “best and brightest.”

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor! Duh! Nothing to do with people being cut from their jobs to ship it overseas, nothing to do with the fact that less jobs are available then ever before. - colin

I will refer you again to the following:

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

It's one of the lowest unemployment rates in history. That means colin, more people are employed today than ever before.

And Colin, that job growth also means that as people gain experience (and are therefore worth more pay) they have more options to get better paying jobs. Have a problem with that?

Spook, The largest influx into American collages and Universities are from the Asian countries where post-secondary education is “free.” The problem for these student immigrants is that the government decides to whom the education is given;

Bane, I'm aware of this. My question to CW was in the same vein as the question posed to Paul Krugman about disproportional wealth (that he's never answered). I find it somewhat humorous (as well as mildly disconcerting) when Liberals talk about "free" education or "free" healthcare, or "free" daycare, or "free" anything. I am anxious, however, to hear CW's explanation.

Spook,
Ah! The “no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch” idea, I get it.
I can tell you that I work at a State University and I have no intention of doing my job without being paid; none of the professors, teachers, administrators or gardeners here will do their jobs without pay either. So I’m guessing that the education isn’t really “free" (/sarcasm)

kjs and neocon,
I hope you’re prepared for Colin’s next post which will be the “burger-flipping jobs” meme. Save time, point him to bls’ Business Employment Dynamics section. Is he always this angry?

Is he always this angry?

Bane, I don't know that it's anger so much as ignorant, youthful idealism. It is sad to witness, though. Hopefully Colin will go through an epiphany at some point; otherwise I hope he doesn't aspire to any position involving leadership.

I'm not angry in the slightest, just amazed that people actually think like Neocon does.

Did you not read the second half of that bolded sentence you posted, because it says rather clearly "made us wealthier then ever before", referring to Americans, which is simply not true. Yes, there are large increases in revenue for the wealthy, but not for the middle class and lower class---which would make Mark's statement false.

Excuse me as I need to help my sister with my nephew---I'll return probably within the hour to address every other person that is debating with me.

See, I like to address all of the issues---not just pick and choose as this fool Neocon does.

If Colin does go to the strawman, burger flipping jobs, I have a simple question. What is wrong with people who have no skills doing entry level work until they have built up a work record? And why is it only the burger flippers you go for?

I agree, let him go to www.bls.gov, and check out the info in the Business Employment Dynamics section. I just did, and from what I read, burger flippers was not the growing area.

"but not for the middle class and lower class-"

I eagerly await some proof of this statement. No, actually I don’t because I know this is simply not true. Did you visit bls.gov? Did you research median income and inflation? I have; it’s my job.

The facts are these;
More Americans are employed that ever before, a larger percentage hold jobs, a smaller percentage are without jobs. This is what economists call “full employment.”

The largest expansion of the employment market is in accounting (whoopee!), managerial, nursing, administrative positions; kjs is right; service jobs like burger-flipping increases every quarter but not at a rate consistent with the overall economic expansion. Service represents about 30% of our exports; we can and do export service, just not burger-flipping. In fact, kjs also saw that “entry level” positions are far more advanced (and much higher paid) in the current atmosphere that entry level was when I was starting out, and that has nothing to do with minimum wage legislation; it is related to our economy and the nature of our businesses.

The Stock Market is reflective of the general health of the economy; the past four years have shown the largest expansion of market generated wealth since the 1950’s. Most Americans are heavily invested in the market through retirement, 401(k) and stock purchases, as well as by simple purchasing of goods and services.

The economy slowed during the first quarter of this year primarily due to the slump in the housing market and oil prices dragging CPI up. However, the market responded with ever increasing optimism which indicates that there is a less than 10% probability of recession, (Greenspan puts the odds at 30% but he’s in the minority.)

Re: the housing slump; I’d also like to point out that existing home sales are down by less than 2% while new home sales are up a staggering 16.2%!

If you truly want to address all of the issues you should listen to people without a political agenda instead of the ones that clearly want to influence your thinking for their gain.

On the economy; follow the advice of economists and researchers that don’t have an interest in the failure of the economy (pundits, Krugman, politico’s) listen instead to academicians and investment analysts; they have an interest in making money off of the economy. They’ll also be honest when circumstances are cause for alarm.

I'm not angry in the slightest, just amazed that people actually think like Neocon does. - colin

I will submit the following as evidence of the type of thinking colin engages in:

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor! Duh! Nothing to do with people being cut from their jobs to ship it overseas, nothing to do with the fact that less jobs are available then ever before. - colin

He continues to assert this "fact" despite the following irrefutable opposing economic condition:

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

Excuse me as I need to help my sister with my nephew - colin

What is scary is that these types breed.
More people are employed today rivaling any other time in our history.

I'm not angry in the slightest, just amazed that people actually think like Neocon does. - colin

I will submit the following as evidence of the type of thinking colin engages in:

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor! Duh! Nothing to do with people being cut from their jobs to ship it overseas, nothing to do with the fact that less jobs are available then ever before. - colin

He continues to assert this "fact" despite the following irrefutable opposing economic condition:

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

More people are employed today rivaling any other time in our history.

Excuse me as I need to help my sister with my nephew - colin

What is scary is that these types breed.

I'm not angry in the slightest, just amazed that people actually think like Neocon does. - colin

I will submit the following as evidence of the type of thinking colin engages in:

Oh okay, I get it now Neocon, it's the poor's fault for being poor! Duh! Nothing to do with people being cut from their jobs to ship it overseas, nothing to do with the fact that less jobs are available then ever before. - colin

He continues to assert this "fact" despite the following irrefutable opposing economic condition:

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

More people are employed today rivaling any other time in our history.

Excuse me as I need to help my sister with my nephew - colin

What is scary is that these types breed.

it's funny how all of the leading economic indicators are better now than in the 90's yet the 90's was the best economy we've ever experienced and today we're a step away from being in the bread and soup lines.

colin said he likes to address the issue. well back up your insane assurtions with some proof. show us where the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer. just saying it, especially coming from you, doesn't make it so. ENLIGHTEN US, ECONOMY GURU!

Dasein Libsbane wrote:

"OhioOrrin,
you couldn’t be more wrong about the debt to China; as a “lender” they are invested in our success. But, even if your worse fears would come to fruition, China would be the biggest loser in a transaction that didn’t go according to the terms of the loan, not the US. Intergovernmental accounting isn’t comparable to “private sector” accounting."

well, ahem - congrats, I don't think milton freidman could've represented better. but then that's an economic view.

here's the realpolitik. the chinese communist party doesn't "invest in the success" of capitalist enemies. they hold these t-notes as a backstop for their own artificily-manipulated currency & the over-due-to-crash shanghi bourse.

thus the t-notes china holds facilitates our trade deficit because the yuan can remain artificily low. and the over-heated shanghi bourse diverts international capital from US investment because international investors know the t-notes can be used as a crash backstop.

and ur correct about intergovt accounting not being comparable to the private sector otherwise neither party's politicos could intentionally mis-stated earnings & obligations.

our true total debt is horrendous, well concealed, growing, & largly held by our enemies!

no politican has the guts to address this.

Spook,
Given the tone a tenor of your response vis-à-vis Colin, I directed my comments to Colin in the hopes that he would put aside his agenda driven opinions and actually research the economy and the conditions. I hope he takes the time to read it. I hope you're right about his ignorance; that's curable; stupidity is terminal.

There is plenty of good news on the economy, and many people, if not all can benefit from wisely planning for the future. JFK (Kennedy, not Kerry) famously referred to “a rising tide lifting all boats” he knew something of wealth creation, and understood the value of prudent investing. Sort of Caveat Emptor in the realm of estate planning.

Reagan was an economist, people often forget that was his training, and he was surprised by the increased revenue to the treasury when marginal tax rates were cut; unintended consequences. Still, Reagan and Kennedy (and Bush) all saw the value (equity) of allowing the people to have greater control of the fruits of their own labors; the markets are responding as they always have and there’s no reason everyone can’t benefit (I also recommend reading Andrew Carnegie’s tome on full employment and market forces.)

I hope you're right about his ignorance; that's curable; stupidity is terminal.

I've heard that, heh, heh.

Sadly, I suspect that it's easier for Colin to parrot the talking points he's picked up on Leftist websites, or had spoonfed to him by liberal college professors, than it is to do the research you suggested. Besides, the truth would probably be such a shock to his psyche that he might not recover. And, of course, that would be a tragedy.

Falgore,
After what was then the largest peacetime expansion of our economy, Bill Clinton referred to the "Bush years" as "the worst economy since the Great Depression." The Press simply parroted this assertion without any evidence, claimed there were "millions" of homeless living in our streets and all our wealth was on the verge of collapse.

When the economy continued to grow in the 1990's (thank you Mr. Reagan) the homeless magically disappeared, the wealth creation of the 80’s was part of the evil “me generation” and the rich were getting richer, while the evil Republican were forcing our grandparents to eat dog food.

Do you see a familiar theme in the (Hillary) Clinton campaign?

bane, all i know is that i work in the fitness industry and i can tell you that my industy feels the economy like no other industry. because when you are dealing with disposable income, if money is tight people don't want to pay to exercise, especially personal training.

at the end of clinton's term times were tight for me. after 9/11 they got worse, but over the last 5 years my income has increased every year.

Falgore,

To paraphrase the Clintons and the willing dung beetles of the MSM, “Who’re you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

All of this talk about jobs gentlemen is just that talk. If people with those jobs cannot pay their bills and are in the debt of corporations who thrive on usury then it would not matter if the US had full employment. Debt is the detail that bedevils this economy in America not employment. personal and governmental debt are what eventually will stagnate it and no amount of "good employment figures" will be able to pave over that crater.

OhioOrrin,

Reasonable people can disagree, thanks for reasonably disagreeing.

Remember that a Treasury Note is essentially a bond, issued for a future value if the conditions are met by the holder; time, proper notice of valuation etc. Once matured the notes can be converted to a more fungible asset; cash, or may be used to purchase more notes, assign debt, or simply held beyond maturity. If China were to try to dump the notes prior to maturity they would have to find a buyer and they would have to discount the note to sell early. Btw, there are plenty of potential buyers out there; China’s effort to “divert international capital from US investments” would result in a bidding war to buy US Treasury Notes at a discount while markets like Japan and Briton will continue to up their investments every time a new Bond is issued.

You are correct that China uses the notes as equity guarantees and that by using our economic strength as a “backstop” they overvalue the economic strength of their own economy. But, what is the harm to the US if China’s investors lose faith? The notes are still guaranteed by the Treasury, we still have to pay back investors regardless of who holds the notes.

But there is a secondary line here you’re not considering; China has loaned money to the US outside of the Treasury market. These loans are even more subject to the viability and strength of our economy because like any loan shark if China wants to call the loan due they would put pressure on the Treasury to sell short to meet that obligation, damn good thing the stock market in the US is on fire, huh?

I recommend you read Should we worry about all that debt held by foreigners? The trade deficit and budget deficit are two divergent concepts with drastically different effects on the economy. Just like the question I posed vis-à-vis the gap between rich and poor, no one can explain why the trade deficit is a cause for concern, mostly I hear it’s a problem because it’s a problem.

Governmental accounting is much stricter than private sector accounting, read up on Sarbanes Oxley and GASB and FASB circulars and pronouncements. Politicos can “manipulate” the information to the public because it’s so confusing, even to those of us that work lip-deep in this stuff day after day.

Btw, Milton Freidman was a god!

Cavalor Epthith, Esquire as usual, you’re an idiot.

Please explain how corporations “thrive on usury”. Did you pick this up off of your “Word of the Day” calendar? Let me take a look at my Word of the Day calendar … there it is, the word of the day is pretentious how can I use that one? Tell ya what, we’ll get back to that.

” Debt is the detail that bedevils this economy in America not employment.” The economy is “robust” not “bedeviled” so this string of words is like everything else your write; sophomoric drivel. I noted in another post that you seem to depend on MS Word to correct your syntax and spelling, but no digitized word processor can compensate for your jejune writing.

Debt is dynamic; debtor and debtee contractually agree to an arrangement of fiscal liability. The debt and repayment are part of the economic cycle, so your absurd statement, and by the way nonsensical “personal and governmental debt are what eventually will stagnate it” is just more puerile hot air.

Now, back to the word of the day, “The pretentious tome posted her by the pretentious “Cavalor” is, like Mr. “Cavalor” himself a waste of time, effort and cyberspace. Mr. “Cavalor” pretentiously attaches the addendum “Esquire” to his sobriquet, but be aware, he is not a lawyer; just a pretentious ass."

Yep, I like that, thanks for giving me an excuse to use the word of the day. But, before you use your word of the day again, I suggest you look up the meaning; you used it incorrectly.